I'm not going into this game with expectations of how it will play. I'm looking forward to discovering the game before me and I'm keeping an open mind. I would suggest you all to do the same least you sour yourself on what 'is' there as opposed to what you expect to be there.

Ranger1 wrote:I'm not going into this game with expectations of how it will play. I'm looking forward to discovering the game before me and I'm keeping an open mind. I would suggest you all to do the same least you sour yourself on what 'is' there as opposed to what you expect to be there.

Well, then what's the point of a discussion forum, especially with backers?
It helps the developers know what people love, what people want to see, and what they don't want to see, even if it's across the board. Gives'em meat to chew on as they make their decisions ;) If you have no expectations, that's great, hopefully you'll enjoy what they cook up (better not make any suggestions though ;)) j/k. I do hope you chime in with anything you would like to see in the game, that's valuable input!

- I'm one of those guys who played the originals 30 years ago and will buy this (when it comes out on XBox ) simply because it is a Bard's Tale game, but I have believed for a long time that a new BT game wasn't (and shouldn't) look and play exactly like the games from the 1980's. There was going to be some modernization. So, I'm ok with this skill selection and set. Though personally, I would have preferred a simpler process; the methodology used in XCom would be ideal.

- One thing I would prefer not to see is the weapon specialization skills, like I saw in Dragon Wars. "Oh, I found an axe. But I suck at using axes. Better invest in axes. Oh, now I found a much better sword. But I suck at using swords...."

- I'd go with a level cap, but I'm fine without it also. I agree with at least making it impractical to get to an overpowered level just by slaughtering goblins and kobolds.
And while I'm not really a fan of the monsters leveling with the player mechanic found in many games (though I get the need for it), I do think some fights should employ it just to prevent people from simply overpowering their way through major fights.

- I don't think the fighter classes were boring, per se, but they were awfully similar, especially the Warrior and Paladin. There ended up being a little more difference by BT3, but that was really more of a viability issue.
What stands out more is how underpowered the fighters were compared to mages in BT2 and BT3.
Which, BTW, the mages were actually even more similar that the fighters. Is there anyone who would outright skip one of the four classes in their magic users, meaning there was an entire library of spells that one character could cast that the other could not?

- Question, since I haven't read all the updates: Is there going to be a cleric/healer class in this? I remember it being discussed, with it having a mixed reaction here.

Ether wrote:- I'm one of those guys who played the originals 30 years ago and will buy this (when it comes out on XBox ) simply because it is a Bard's Tale game, but I have believed for a long time that a new BT game wasn't (and shouldn't) look and play exactly like the games from the 1980's.

What exactly makes it a Bard's Tale game if it neither looks, nor plays like one?

*For the record, I think the BT4 art design looks superb; and even the gameplay concepts I've seen, look playable, and probably fun... But nothing about the game ~so far seems to justify its sequel namesake; not anymore than FO3 or FO4 do as alleged Fallout sequels, [which is to say nearly none]; nor even Wasteland 2 ~actually ~(great game that it was in its own right).

What (outside of the two words and the number 4 in the title) makes this game a Bard's Tale sequel? Even Devil Whiskey seems far more like a Bard's Tale game than BT4 at [public] present.

Myself, I do not favor casting nets to fish for past fans with an entirely unrelated bait. This is what Bethesda did, and it left a bad taste; though not on its own merit... more like being sold hot-peppers that taste like blueberries, and ruining the expectation of the dish. If I'm to buy a game sequel at all, I will expect it to be familiar, and expand upon the series foundation; not start wholly anew with a nearly unrelated product that neither reminds one of the originals, nor offers a comparably improved familiar experience ~else why bother naming it of the series, when it could stand on its own as its product and new series beginning.

That could certainly work pretty well. Probably work better, too. Pity.

One thing I would prefer not to see is the weapon specialization skills, like I saw in Dragon Wars. "Oh, I found an axe. But I suck at using axes. Better invest in axes. Oh, now I found a much better sword. But I suck at using swords...."

Looks like that ship has sailed, unfortunately. Modern games seem to love forcing people to master their mechanics and synergies before they even start playing.

I'd go with a level cap, but I'm fine without it also. I agree with at least making it impractical to get to an overpowered level just by slaughtering goblins and kobolds.

I recently did some behind-the-scenes leveling of a party in Curse of the Azure Bonds for a planned recorded playthrough. Anyway, I did something I always wanted to do, but never actually did: build a party around dual-class humans. The game starts you at level 5, so I made a party and then juggled almost everyone's classes and the releveled the party using the in-game bar fight. The bar fight nets you around 50 XP. Needless to say, it took a ridiculous amount of time to level everyone back up to level 5. Frankly, I'm not sure it was worth it.

In other words, if someone wants to waste hours and hours of their life doing something ridiculous, they should be able to. And frankly, the games were always kind of stacked against grinding anyway, just by the inflating XP requirements. My BT1 Magician needs something like 40,000 XP to get his next level. At 25xp a pop, I'm not going to farm 1600 skeletons. But, again, if I want to waste a month of my life farming the Wine Cellar until I'm level 50, I should be allowed to.

I'd much rather see ballooning XP requirements than a hard cap. "Nope. It is impossible for you to learn any more." Personally, when I hit XP caps, I tend to stop caring about the game. There's been more than one game that I've stopped playing because I've maxed my level. I can watch the closing cutscene on Youtube.

I do think some fights should employ it just to prevent people from simply overpowering their way through major fights.

Well crafted fights will be tough to overpower through regardless. Or big enough fights. One of the lead-in fights to Tarjan in BT3 is actually quite difficult, even with a maxed party. Your Geomancer can only EAMA one group at a time, and there's a lot of groups.

Question, since I haven't read all the updates: Is there going to be a cleric/healer class in this? I remember it being discussed, with it having a mixed reaction here.

They've mentioned a cleric class. So I guess they're stealing all the healing spells from the other magic classes. Of course, with this new progression system, Cleric might be a focus of the (sigh) "fighter", or maybe one of the magic classes.

Aw, hell... are they going to do this with the mages? Force you to pick between Sorcerer and Wizard?

Drool wrote:I'd much rather see ballooning XP requirements than a hard cap. "Nope. It is impossible for you to learn any more." Personally, when I hit XP caps, I tend to stop caring about the game. There's been more than one game that I've stopped playing because I've maxed my level. I can watch the closing cutscene on Youtube.

Yes! I hate when games do this. Even (blargh) Pokemon Go - For example, apparently the achievements cap. Capture enough creature types (to 3 star gold) and there's no more to achieve. Why not bump another 10 fold? Then another? Eventually the bar will be unrealistically high, but at least it's not like you've come to an end and have no more goal to achieve. Same, as you explained, with XP. Just balloon it up so at least there's some sense of continued progression, even for the strongest most advanced characters.

Drool wrote:I'd much rather see ballooning XP requirements than a hard cap. "Nope. It is impossible for you to learn any more." Personally, when I hit XP caps, I tend to stop caring about the game. There's been more than one game that I've stopped playing because I've maxed my level. I can watch the closing cutscene on Youtube.

Yes! I hate when games do this. Even (blargh) Pokemon Go - For example, apparently the achievements cap. Capture enough creature types (to 3 star gold) and there's no more to achieve. Why not bump another 10 fold? Then another? Eventually the bar will be unrealistically high, but at least it's not like you've come to an end and have no more goal to achieve. Same, as you explained, with XP. Just balloon it up so at least there's some sense of continued progression, even for the strongest most advanced characters.

Yeah. I already weighed in upthread, I think - but since we're talking about it again, I wanted to reiterate my opposition to level caps. Part of the fun of RPGs is watching numbers increase. Simplistic but true. I get dopamine from earning points just like everybody else. When playing an RPG, I expect numbers to keep going up; it's valuable even if the "goal line" is astronomically distant.

Looks like that ship has sailed, unfortunately. Modern games seem to love forcing people to master their mechanics and synergies before they even start playing.

Heh...yeah.
Thank goodness though for free guides on the internet.

Force you to pick between Sorcerer and Wizard?

While I know a lot of people here won't like this, that's someone I'd actually like to see.

We had the fighters are boring, because they are rather similar discussion, but truth be told, so are the mages. I mean, the classes are kind of different, but since your mages can go through them all, they end up learning the same spells.
Playing in the 1980's, the only difference between my two mages is that I always skipped the Level 7 Sorcerer spells on one of my mages. Playing recently I leaped from Sorcerer to Wizard a little earlier. But otherwise, they both cast the same Conjurer, Magician, Wizard, and Archmage spells; only meaningful difference between the two is that one could cast the Dreamspell and the other couldn't.
BT3 separates them some with the Archmage v. Chronomancer line.

I like the idea, in this case, of having to chose between using illusions, or using summoned real creatures.

They've mentioned a cleric class

Ok...thanks for the info.

Now, tying the above into the Cleric, it's not a terrible concept, but it will be real tough for them to balance it out.
I don't want to have to be forced to have a Cleric. But, it you give him all the healing spells, and keep the same healing mechanic that the originals had, you have no choice but to have one.
Now, BT4 can change course from the originals and have the party automatically heal after combat (which I can certainly understand why that would be unpopular), or have the party slowly heal after or even during combat, but either way, it would have to be done in a way that makes the character neither necessary or worthless. That may be tough to do.

Ether wrote:- I'm one of those guys who played the originals 30 years ago and will buy this (when it comes out on XBox ) simply because it is a Bard's Tale game, but I have believed for a long time that a new BT game wasn't (and shouldn't) look and play exactly like the games from the 1980's.

What exactly makes it a Bard's Tale game if it neither looks, nor plays like one?
.

Story and series mythology.
Which granted, is a whole other discussion.

Gizmo wrote:
What (outside of the two words and the number 4 in the title) makes this game a Bard's Tale sequel? Even Devil Whiskey seems far more like a Bard's Tale game than BT4 at [public] present.

Myself, I do not favor casting nets to fish for past fans with an entirely unrelated bait.

Nor do I. Reusing the name of a city or throwing in the Adventurer's Guild really isn't sufficient to call this a sequel. That is throwing the merest of crumbs to old fans who were hoping for a true sequel. If they have the desire to build a different game, then that's fine, but I wish they would use a different name and divorce the new work from all references to the original Bard's Tale games. And, they can hang onto my money, if they plan on using it to build a true sequel at a later point.

Ether wrote:- One thing I would prefer not to see is the weapon specialization skills, like I saw in Dragon Wars. "Oh, I found an axe. But I suck at using axes. Better invest in axes. Oh, now I found a much better sword. But I suck at using swords...."

Actually Dragon Wars wasn't that bad in this sense. You could still use any weapon without the skill (given you had the STR, or DEX requirements) so the weapon skills were rather useless. Also it had a classless system which is very different from BT. Nevertheless i agree with you and am not very fond of this proposed system.

Gizmo wrote:What exactly makes it a Bard's Tale game if it neither looks, nor plays like one?
.

Story and series mythology.
Which granted, is a whole other discussion.

But that by itself only qualifies spin-offs... Like Halo Wars, and Spacemarine; neither of those is a sequel in the way Bard's Tale #4 is set to be...
[and the way FO3 & 4 were presented ] Spacemarine is no 'Dawn of War III', nor Halo Wars a 'Halo V'... simply for using the IP.

Gizmo wrote:What exactly makes it a Bard's Tale game if it neither looks, nor plays like one?
.

Story and series mythology.
Which granted, is a whole other discussion.

But that by itself only qualifies spin-offs... Like Halo Wars, and Spacemarine; neither of those is a sequel in the way Bard's Tale #4 is set to be...
[and the way FO3 & 4 were presented ] Spacemarine is no 'Dawn of War III', nor Halo Wars a 'Halo V'... simply for using the IP.

Well, in the case of Halo Wars, you're talking about a franchise that has been first person shooters and presenting a game that is an RTS. That's quite a difference. That would be like making a Madden Football game into a text adventure, or the Bard's Tale into a platform jumper.

Granted, I've haven't followed all the updates, but I don't think they are doing anything nearly as extreme. I get the impression that it is mostly the same style of game, but with more visuals and more depth.

Ether wrote:Well, in the case of Halo Wars, you're talking about a franchise that has been first person shooters and presenting a game that is an RTS. That's quite a difference. That would be like making a Madden Football game into a text adventure, or the Bard's Tale into a platform jumper.

Is it any different than Bethesda's FO3 as a sequel to Fallout 2?

*Or actually the same goes for Wasteland 2 IMO; it plays more like Fallout:Tactics than Wasteland. It is an unrelated game that simply uses the IP.

*Better examples [IMO] are the Myth and Disciples series games; where the games made the transition to full 3d from sprites, and were made by different studios ~one done a decade later; and yet all of them retained their respective series' identity, and built upon the established gameplay. You look at these games and know them as sequels to their series ~ie. they kept the reasons to buy (and identify) a sequel. Bethesda with FO3/4 didn't. I don't think InXile did either, with WL2, or ~seemingly/so far with BT4.

**A good example [of the reverse] is the Warcraft series, with Warcraft 1, 2, & 3... and not World -Of-Warcraft being pushed as "Warcraft 4" ~which of course it wasn't; it was an entirely unrelated game that used the Warcraft IP, (and they knew this).